|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - op
26
« on: September 21, 2016, 12:18 »
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them 
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.
When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors. The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag. I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera. The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.
Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers. I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7. Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.
I wasn't speaking about resolution but low light sensitivity and dynamic range. High iso and landscape photographers would find MFT very limited compared to full frame.
27
« on: September 21, 2016, 11:55 »
SS has a 4GB limit on footage and last year it was 2,5GB. In 4K Pro-res 422 HQ, that's just few seconds. When I checked VB at their opening they would only host mjpeg/h.264 files, you could upload pro-res but they would re-encode it. I just checked again and they really improve with a 25GB limit and almost all codecs accepted. I should have not mentioned Pond5 since they always were good.
To rectify my point of vue, I am a 10bit supporter and all my footage are pro-res 422 HQ since 2012 but I encountered a lot of frustration when stock companies back then didn't care much about it or being 8 or 10bit.
28
« on: September 20, 2016, 17:23 »
It's just as great for stock as the buyer is just as likely to want to color correct if the sold clip isn't. The difference in what you can do with 10-bit is quite big.
You will need to upload pro-res, cineform or dnxhd files for that but all of the footage micro-stock websites (SS, pond5, VB) are pushing for h.264 or Mjpeg. Some of them will even re-encode your pro-res files into mjpeg or h.264 that will bring your footage to 8bits back... Only Getty wants exclusively pro-res 422 HQ.
29
« on: September 20, 2016, 12:39 »
What is so great about 10-bit 4:2:2? Can someone offer an explanation or a link? I love th micro 3/4 system but still use it mostly for photography.
To be brief and easy, it keeps more information after compression so the footage (especially color) resists better during post-prod color correction. It is great for videographer/filmmaker but I don't think it is very important for stock especially micro-stock as many people don't color correct their footage or just lightly.
30
« on: September 20, 2016, 12:32 »
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.
When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors. The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag. I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera. The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.
Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
31
« on: September 20, 2016, 00:50 »
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.
When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
32
« on: September 19, 2016, 10:59 »
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them
33
« on: August 20, 2016, 19:31 »
It's July so it's slow but not that bad.
34
« on: August 02, 2016, 15:56 »
There were Getty watermarks on some of those images. I think they'll have a hard time passing the buck on this one.
Actually when I first saw this thread, the picture show an Alamy watermark, then they changed it to Getty's and now I just checked again and it's back to Alamy's...
35
« on: July 21, 2016, 14:19 »
Getty has representative offices both in China and India. I do sell in both countries.
36
« on: June 28, 2016, 15:40 »
I don't keep track of my numbers but I know that I don't do worse 
Not even for income tax purposes?
I live in a country where I don't need to do that..
37
« on: June 28, 2016, 01:49 »
Are you all full time stock producers?
38
« on: June 27, 2016, 04:49 »
I don't keep track of my numbers but I know that I don't do worse
39
« on: June 27, 2016, 04:43 »
Excuse my ignorance, what is SS Premier?
Interested to know about it. Could someone take the time to explain?
http://premier.shutterstock.com/ A platform for big agencies/companies.
Thankyou for taking the time to explain
Can someone please give it a try? That page doesn't say much. Frankly it's the first time I've ever heard of it.
Just search into the photo section. It has been talked about a lot.
40
« on: June 26, 2016, 08:40 »
It would be nice if they let us know what sales are Premier.
Look at your royalties. If you receive more than $100 for one clip then it was surely from Premier.
I do that. But, are we 100% sure that only Premier can bring these high revenues. There may be some other markets.
Which other markets? Shutterstock only sell on their own marketplaces no? How often do you have sales like this?
I don't know, just guessing. There are no reports for where sales come from.
Very rarely.
I see, thanks!
41
« on: June 26, 2016, 06:20 »
Is all footage included in Shutterstock Premier or do you have to apply?
Yea, same footages but better services.
42
« on: June 26, 2016, 06:18 »
It would be nice if they let us know what sales are Premier.
Look at your royalties. If you receive more than $100 for one clip then it was surely from Premier.
I do that. But, are we 100% sure that only Premier can bring these high revenues. There may be some other markets.
Which other markets? Shutterstock only sell on their own marketplaces no? How often do you have sales like this?
43
« on: June 26, 2016, 03:44 »
Excuse my ignorance, what is SS Premier?
Interested to know about it. Could someone take the time to explain?
http://premier.shutterstock.com/ A platform for big agencies/companies.
44
« on: June 26, 2016, 02:22 »
It would be nice if they let us know what sales are Premier.
Look at your royalties. If you receive more than $100 for one clip then it was surely from Premier.
45
« on: June 25, 2016, 16:06 »
How do you know which sales are Premier?
Price I guess, HD is $400 and 4K is $699 there.
46
« on: June 25, 2016, 08:02 »
Hello,
Do you guys sell a lot of footage from Shutterstock Premier?
Thanks
47
« on: June 20, 2016, 12:28 »
Did not read... but here
A professional told me one day that they tested all kind of compresseion at the time (ALL) and PhotoJpeg was the best of all.
ProRes will be better in quality, but the data will be long to transfer.
They did not test H 264... BUT my opinion is that it's the worst. It perfect for a final project, but if you are buying a H264 clip then want to color grade it, you will result with soooooooo much artifacts and compression problem.
PhotoJpeg for the win.
What to do mean by ALL? Because there a lot of codec better than Photo-Jpeg as Pro-res, Cineform, DNxHD, Pixlet, QT animation, huffyuv, lagarith etc. Actually, among editing codec, it might be the worst.
48
« on: May 01, 2016, 05:38 »
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/28/getty_on_google/
Have you actually read what you linked too? The examples of people getting the wrong end of the stick are pretty much verbatim what you have posted.
Yes, I have. And I can't side with Getty on this situation. Every search engine has adopted the same preview feature (Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckgo), but Getty is only going after the biggest player and they're suing to make a product harder to use. This is a slippery slope. After Getty is done with Google, they'll want to do the same to other search engines assuming they win.
I refuse to side with a company that wants to reduce the usability of a product. Not to mention their dishonest public release about why they're suing. They want to make search harder to use, which goes against the philosophy of product design and usability. Google did makes some changes by adding "Visit website" buttons to each image, which drives high quality traffic as opposed to low quality traffic that many websites were getting.
With bigger previews, users are able to clearly see the watermarks of each agency. If people want to buy an expensive image from Getty, they will buy an expensive image from Getty. If they don't, they won't.
You are missing something crucial. Getty is suing Google in the EU where the european commission is accusing Google of abuse of dominant position regarding its internet search and android business. If Google is find guilty, as Microsoft has been in the past, then a bunch of companies will have a good case to suing them back.
49
« on: April 29, 2016, 03:04 »
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.
Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.
And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.
No, they are not watermarked! Not mine so I guess, I'm far from alone.
50
« on: April 28, 2016, 13:59 »
I think it's about google video scanner. I have 640x360px watermark free frames of my videos all over google..
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
